Using Irony to Convey Stuff

[jerseyjay]

 Then there is ironic self-deprecation, which means to claim to be the smartest person in the world, but in a way that the audience understands that you are being ironic and do not really think you are the smartest person in the world. I find that students get this more than administrators, who tend to both think that they are really the smartest people in the world and often not to get certain subtleties of communication.

[apl68]

The power imbalance between you and your students means that they are not likely to question if there is a difference between what you said & what you meant. 
Overall, I vote no on irony, sarcasm, idioms, jokes, and other "hard to understand without lots of context & familiarity" parts of language & communication.

I agree on the first part, I wouldn't go so far on the second. I think to be a successful instructor, you have to find the right edited version of yourself. Do less of all of those things, but if you naturally do a lot of it and you try to do none you'll end up seeming like a robot.

"Find the right edited version of yourself" is a good way of putting it.  None of us can get away in every (or any) group setting with entirely being what we consider "ourselves."  We have to be aware of what seems to work best in that setting and adjust accordingly.  It's an ongoing thing that all of us have to do to some extent.

[Myword]

My experience is that people take things very literally, including students of all ages.

I'd be cautious. Also with metaphors. Irony is an odd word because it looks like iron, a metal or laundry. They may think you are talking about laundry. I am not joking.

[waterboy]

I find that things evolve over a semester. I can get away with various forms of humor now that really wouldn't have worked in August.

[mahagonny]

I find that things evolve over a semester. I can get away with various forms of humor now that really wouldn't have worked in August.

That's true! After they know you and trust you a bit, maybe.

I'm taking it easy on the humorous asides at the moment as I am in the middle of a course of heavy dose of steroids for a serious ailment.  Safer is better!

[Kron3007]

Wife says my students (undergrads) don't understand my use of irony because of their age. It's a 'brain development still in progress' thing. I say no, they probably get it, but it just isn't evident from their facial expression. I do notice that when I run into them at the mall five, ten years later they seem to have much more complex reactions in conversation. Do you have a clear idea what your students can understand. How do you decide?

I'm not sure it's entirely (or even mostly) developmental. Young people, especially now, are raised in an extremely earnest culture. Subtlety and nuance are bad, and so things like irony and sarcasm are lost. (Overt scorn is far more accepted than subtle sarcasm.) The very fact that ironic or sarcastic statements could be taken at face value makes them forbidden.

Wearing their hearts, (or more likely, their politics), on their sleeve is the socially acceptable norm.

Any time you start a sentence with "young people these days" or the equivalent, you are likely off to a bad start.  I use sarcasm a lot, all the time, and cannot/will not stop.  I'm sure some students miss it, but others obviously catch it.  I'm sure there are references they are not likely to get, but most of them have parents of our age and do not live in some sort of bubble exclusively with their peers.

Students are just zombies in class, so you cant gauge much from their expressions.  I remember giving guest lectures early on and thinking they were completely dissinterested, but the prof told me they received great feedback from it.  You should never assume anything based on the ubiquitous blank stares of an undergraduate class.

[marshwiggle]

Young people, especially now, are raised in an extremely earnest culture. Subtlety and nuance are bad, and so things like irony and sarcasm are lost. (Overt scorn is far more accepted than subtle sarcasm.) The very fact that ironic or sarcastic statements could be taken at face value makes them forbidden.

Wearing their hearts, (or more likely, their politics), on their sleeve is the socially acceptable norm.

Any time you start a sentence with "young people these days" or the equivalent, you are likely off to a bad start.  I use sarcasm a lot, all the time, and cannot/will not stop.  I'm sure some students miss it, but others obviously catch it.  I'm sure there are references they are not likely to get, but most of them have parents of our age and do not live in some sort of bubble exclusively with their peers.

Students are just zombies in class, so you cant gauge much from their expressions.  I remember giving guest lectures early on and thinking they were completely dissinterested, but the prof told me they received great feedback from it.  You should never assume anything based on the ubiquitous blank stares of an undergraduate class.

Culture has changed. Back in the Stone Age, when I was a student, there were profs at various institutions who said something to the effect of "Look to your left; look to your right; at the end of the term one of you won't be here." What would happen to an instructor who said that now?

When I was in high school, there were teachers who would throw chalk at students. That would get someone arrested for assault now.

I'm sure others can come up with numerous examples of what was once OK, but is now beyond the pale, (and not due to any kind of bigotry; just due to being extremely blunt). (And this isn't to judge as to whether these things were good or bad; just that the range of what's acceptable has narrowed drastically.)

[dismalist]

When I was in high school, there were teachers who would throw chalk at students. That would get someone arrested for assault now.

Hell, when I was in first semester college, in my first Economics course, the instructor threw a board eraser at me!

There I was, wise assly sitting at the back of the room, chair tipped to lean against the wall behind me, legs stretched out. I had twigged that answers to questions were either "up" or "down". As I could no longer be bothered articulating answers, I just showed thumb up or thumb down. So, one day the board eraser comes flying! Instructor exclaims to the astonished class: Dismalist, you're shooting fifty-fifty!

Needless to say, we had a great time!

[Kron3007]

Young people, especially now, are raised in an extremely earnest culture. Subtlety and nuance are bad, and so things like irony and sarcasm are lost. (Overt scorn is far more accepted than subtle sarcasm.) The very fact that ironic or sarcastic statements could be taken at face value makes them forbidden.

Wearing their hearts, (or more likely, their politics), on their sleeve is the socially acceptable norm.

Any time you start a sentence with "young people these days" or the equivalent, you are likely off to a bad start.  I use sarcasm a lot, all the time, and cannot/will not stop.  I'm sure some students miss it, but others obviously catch it.  I'm sure there are references they are not likely to get, but most of them have parents of our age and do not live in some sort of bubble exclusively with their peers.

Students are just zombies in class, so you cant gauge much from their expressions.  I remember giving guest lectures early on and thinking they were completely dissinterested, but the prof told me they received great feedback from it.  You should never assume anything based on the ubiquitous blank stares of an undergraduate class.

Culture has changed. Back in the Stone Age, when I was a student, there were profs at various institutions who said something to the effect of "Look to your left; look to your right; at the end of the term one of you won't be here." What would happen to an instructor who said that now?

When I was in high school, there were teachers who would throw chalk at students. That would get someone arrested for assault now.

I'm sure others can come up with numerous examples of what was once OK, but is now beyond the pale, (and not due to any kind of bigotry; just due to being extremely blunt). (And this isn't to judge as to whether these things were good or bad; just that the range of what's acceptable has narrowed drastically.)

Yes, there are obvious differences over time so there are times when this can work but the whole "kids these days are so lazy"  and similar tropes are silly and unhelpful.  Youth of today fully understand and use sarcasm.
 

[the_geneticist]

Young people, especially now, are raised in an extremely earnest culture. Subtlety and nuance are bad, and so things like irony and sarcasm are lost. (Overt scorn is far more accepted than subtle sarcasm.) The very fact that ironic or sarcastic statements could be taken at face value makes them forbidden.

Wearing their hearts, (or more likely, their politics), on their sleeve is the socially acceptable norm.

Any time you start a sentence with "young people these days" or the equivalent, you are likely off to a bad start.  I use sarcasm a lot, all the time, and cannot/will not stop.  I'm sure some students miss it, but others obviously catch it.  I'm sure there are references they are not likely to get, but most of them have parents of our age and do not live in some sort of bubble exclusively with their peers.

Students are just zombies in class, so you cant gauge much from their expressions.  I remember giving guest lectures early on and thinking they were completely dissinterested, but the prof told me they received great feedback from it.  You should never assume anything based on the ubiquitous blank stares of an undergraduate class.

Culture has changed. Back in the Stone Age, when I was a student, there were profs at various institutions who said something to the effect of "Look to your left; look to your right; at the end of the term one of you won't be here." What would happen to an instructor who said that now?

When I was in high school, there were teachers who would throw chalk at students. That would get someone arrested for assault now.

I'm sure others can come up with numerous examples of what was once OK, but is now beyond the pale, (and not due to any kind of bigotry; just due to being extremely blunt). (And this isn't to judge as to whether these things were good or bad; just that the range of what's acceptable has narrowed drastically.)

Here, you'd get a scolding that would pin your ears back from the Dean of Students, Department Chair, and the Vice Chair.  Probably assigned some courses to take on equity and inclusion.  And if you failed 2/3 of your students, the Chair would probably demand that you redo the grade cut-offs.  If you are just such a boring instructor that only 1/3 of your class bothers to show up, well, there are other folks that are just as bad.  Not that we support that sort of teaching, but those folks aren't retiring fast enough.

[ciao_yall]

Since the dawn of time, the rules of comedy have been the same.

You may make fun of people "above" you in the social hierarchy, but never "below," however that is defined.

And, with English language learners and multiple subcultures represented in the classroom, we never know how words or actions might be received. That's not the students' fault. It's up to us as the faculty to keep things professional.

[marshwiggle]

Culture has changed. Back in the Stone Age, when I was a student, there were profs at various institutions who said something to the effect of "Look to your left; look to your right; at the end of the term one of you won't be here." What would happen to an instructor who said that now?

When I was in high school, there were teachers who would throw chalk at students. That would get someone arrested for assault now.

I'm sure others can come up with numerous examples of what was once OK, but is now beyond the pale, (and not due to any kind of bigotry; just due to being extremely blunt). (And this isn't to judge as to whether these things were good or bad; just that the range of what's acceptable has narrowed drastically.)

Here, you'd get a scolding that would pin your ears back from the Dean of Students, Department Chair, and the Vice Chair.  Probably assigned some courses to take on equity and inclusion. 

Interesting. Why, specifically, would this have anything to do with equity and inclusion? Unless there's evidence that a prof has been selectively failing students from some group, it's about whether or not a prof's expectations are realistic, not whether they are fairly applied.

And if you failed 2/3 of your students, the Chair would probably demand that you redo the grade cut-offs.  If you are just such a boring instructor that only 1/3 of your class bothers to show up, well, there are other folks that are just as bad.  Not that we support that sort of teaching, but those folks aren't retiring fast enough.

So what it it was 10% instead of 2/3? Is it only the proportion of students likely to fail that is a problem, or is it the blunt statement that it is inevitable? My guess is that these days it's more the latter than the former. Saying that everyone won't get a participation trophy is *unacceptable.

(*After the midterm in my course, where about 5% failed, and 4% got 100%, I pointed out that 20% of the people who failed had not submitted a single assignment. I'm sure if I taught the course 10 times the results would be similar. In a big enough group, there will be a noticeable portion who self-sabotage.)

Since the dawn of time, the rules of comedy have been the same.

You may make fun of people "above" you in the social hierarchy, but never "below," however that is defined.

Seriously? Much, if not most, comedy historically has included jokes at the expense of all kinds of people "below". It's only very recently that it has become frowned upon. It's why people like Jerry Seinfeld have stopped playing to student audiences, since there are now so many taboos. (Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a major departure from history.)

[the_geneticist]

If you tell a class that "1/3 of you won't be here at the end of the term", that tells students:
1) you expect many of them to fail
2) you already have decided many of them don't belong here
3) you don't even want all of them to be here

Students that are already feeling out-of-place (e.g. first to college, minority, female, low-income), are much more likely to interpret that information as THEY are the ones who are expected to fail, don't belong, and aren't wanted.

White, male students that are not first generation & not low income are more likely to feel like "The professor doesn't mean ME as that 1/3.  I'm supposed to be here."

It's an unkind, unwelcoming, and shown to be damaging way to approach your students.

Instead, if you said "This class is typically quite challenging.  You are expected to apply the knowledge from [X] into new situations [Y & Z].  This takes persistence and practice.  To help you succeed. . . . [learning goals/where to find review materials/etc."

Or tell them that the grading scale is NOT competitive.  All students who score higher than

• points will earn at least
• grades.

[marshwiggle]

If you tell a class that "1/3 of you won't be here at the end of the term", that tells students:
1) you expect many of them to fail
2) you already have decided many of them don't belong here
3) you don't even want all of them to be here

Students that are already feeling out-of-place (e.g. first to college, minority, female, low-income), are much more likely to interpret that information as THEY are the ones who are expected to fail, don't belong, and aren't wanted.

White, male students that are not first generation & not low income are more likely to feel like "The professor doesn't mean ME as that 1/3.  I'm supposed to be here."

It's an unkind, unwelcoming, and shown to be damaging way to approach your students.

Instead, if you said "This class is typically quite challenging.  You are expected to apply the knowledge from [X] into new situations [Y & Z].  This takes persistence and practice.  To help you succeed. . . . [learning goals/where to find review materials/etc."

Or tell them that the grading scale is NOT competitive.  All students who score higher than

• points will earn at least
• grades.
  

So is there any problem with telling them that typically 10% of people who start the course drop out or fail? Is mentioning that possibility at all too extreme?

[Kron3007]

If you tell a class that "1/3 of you won't be here at the end of the term", that tells students:
1) you expect many of them to fail
2) you already have decided many of them don't belong here
3) you don't even want all of them to be here

Students that are already feeling out-of-place (e.g. first to college, minority, female, low-income), are much more likely to interpret that information as THEY are the ones who are expected to fail, don't belong, and aren't wanted.

White, male students that are not first generation & not low income are more likely to feel like "The professor doesn't mean ME as that 1/3.  I'm supposed to be here."

It's an unkind, unwelcoming, and shown to be damaging way to approach your students.

Instead, if you said "This class is typically quite challenging.  You are expected to apply the knowledge from [X] into new situations [Y & Z].  This takes persistence and practice.  To help you succeed. . . . [learning goals/where to find review materials/etc."

Or tell them that the grading scale is NOT competitive.  All students who score higher than

• points will earn at least
• grades.
  

So is there any problem with telling them that typically 10% of people who start the course drop out or fail? Is mentioning that possibility at all too extreme?

As the geneticist stated, it is largely about how the message is delivered rather than the number.  There is no problem in delivering the percentages, but there are many ways to do so.